Agents for mixed-degradation image restoration typically learn what a tool does to an image only after running it: failed calls waste computation and harmful outputs go unnoticed until too late. We propose PreActIR, an agentic restoration framework that predicts tool consequences before execution. For each candidate tool, a tool-conditioned world model forecasts changes in residual degradation, image quality, and fidelity, together with the risk of harm and the uncertainty of the prediction. The agent executes the top-ranked candidate, and an independent verifier commits or rolls back its output before the agent replans from the observed state. PreActIR also audits whether performance is limited by the selector or by the candidate space, and studies targeted tool adaptation as a controlled way to expand that space. In a controlled evaluation that fixes the candidate pool, verifier, and budget and employs reference-annotated degradation states, PreActIR uses 42.5% fewer real tool calls and 63.4% fewer rejected calls than reactive, execute-then-evaluate trial and error, while improving Y-PSNR by 0.92 dB.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivation of PreActIR. Existing agentic restoration is largely reactive: tool effects are observed only after execution, while decisions remain restricted to the available action space. PreActIR predicts action consequences before execution.
Figure 2: Overview of PreActIR. The world model predicts action consequences before execution, while the predict–act–verify controller executes and verifies the selected action with commit or rollback. A tool-evolution loop performs candidate-frontier audit and targeted tool adaptation.
Figure 3: An illustrative predict–act–verify trajectory under haze and rain.
Group
Type
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
MANIQA ↑
CLIP-IQA ↑
MUSIQ ↑
A
All-in-One
AirNet CVPR’22
19.13
0.602
0.428
0.258
0.393
42.46
PromptIR NeurIPS’23
20.06
0.609
0.413
0.263
0.401
42.62
MiOIR arXiv’24
20.84
0.656
0.372
0.245
0.393
47.82
DA-CLIP ICLR’24
19.58
0.603
0.427
0.242
0.414
42.51
InstructIR ECCV’24
18.03
0.575
0.443
0.266
0.353
45.77
AutoDIR ECCV’24
19.64
0.629
0.397
0.250
0.377
47.01
Table 1: Quantitative comparison on the three compound-degradation subsets of MiO100. Best and second-best results are marked in bold and underlined, respectively.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
MANIQA ↑
CLIP-IQA ↑
MUSIQ ↑
AirNet
23.31
0.747
0.448
0.236
0.327
35.27
PromptIR
23.86
0.754
0.434
0.241
0.327
35.48
MiOIR
24.00
0.747
0.424
0.239
0.351
36.85
DA-CLIP
23.73
0.744
0.427
0.251
0.333
36.41
AutoDIR
20.75
0.664
0.479
0.247
0.315
42.68
AgenticIR
23.93
0.721
0.373
0.315
0.451
52.91
Table 2: Quantitative comparison on the paired real-world 100-image set used in MAIR.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on representative examples from MiO100 Groups A–C.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison on a representative example from the paired real-world dataset.
Method
HR (%) ↑
Harm (%) ↓
Severe (%) ↓
Δ PSNR Y ↑
Δ SSIM Y ↑
Δ LPIPS ↓
rs↑
Random
1.1
55.7
28.2
− 0.10
0.015
− 0.038
–
Tool prior
31.9
40.6
13.8
0.98
0.058
− 0.067
0.284
Degradation routing
36.6
35.6
15.0
1.27
0.052
− 0.079
0.378
Direct scorer
36.7
48.8
27.5
1.26
0.053
− 0.056
0.247
World model (WM)
34.6
42.5
21.9
1.14
0.055
− 0.069
0.309
WM-F
31.9
46.2
23.1
1.05
0.051
− 0.057
0.314
Table 3: Open-loop top-1 selection on 160 OOF states with 2,147 executed candidates. HR: share of oracle headroom recovered. Harm: the selected action lowers Y-PSNR by more than 0.05 dB, Y-SSIM by more than 0.005, or mean proxy quality. Severe: Y-PSNR drop ≥ 1 dB or Y-SSIM drop ≥ 0.05. rs : mean within-state Spearman correlation of scores with realized ΔFY . WM-F: fidelity head alone.
Figure 6: Risk information from pre-execution prediction; brackets and bands are 95% clean-identity cluster-bootstrap intervals. (a) ROC for detecting harmful actions among 2,147 candidates. Paired AUC gains of pharm : 0.118 [0.091,0.146] over Direct and 0.073 [0.054,0.093] over WM-F. (b) HR versus harmful submissions when the top action may be replaced by a no-op. Lines sweep an abstention threshold on predicted harm (WM- τ ) or gain (Direct- τ ), with bands shown where all draws have support; dots: top-1 results of Table 3 ; dashed lines: 5/10/15% harm.
Policy
Calls ↓
Rejects ↓
Time (s) ↓
PSNR Y ↑
SSIM Y ↑
LPIPS ↓
Harm (%) ↓
Reactive trial-and-error
2.97
2.36
39.6
21.16
0.676
0.422
15.6
Fidelity-head ranking
1.75
0.90
25.8
22.27
0.689
0.420
18.1
PreActIR (structured)
1.71
0.86
25.3
22.08
0.690
0.416
14.4
Table 4: Matched closed-loop comparison on the 160 OOF states with a shared candidate pool, verifier, and budget B=4 . Calls and rejects are per image; time counts restoration-tool execution only. Rejects, PreActIR minus reactive: −1.49 per image, CI [−1.78,−1.21] .
Figure 7: Group C frontier audit (post hoc, using test references). (a) Attainable mean Y-PSNR vs. MUSIQ for the fixed and expanded pools (dashed); gray: deployed fixed-pool system; red: final system, built on a different fixed-pool configuration (Sec. 4.5 ); hollow: baselines of Table 1 . (b) Per-combination Y-PSNR (LR: low resolution); oracle at the fixed system’s MUSIQ level.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Policy
PSNR Y↑
SSIM Y↑
LPIPS ↓
ΔFY↑
Harm (%) ↓
Regret ↓
Degradation routing
20.7006
0.6593
0.3974
1.1212
48.1
3.9618
Direct scorer
22.6932
0.6883
0.4174
3.4042
21.2
1.6788
World model ( H=1 )
22.5510
0.6958
0.4045
3.3364
15.6
1.7466
World model ( H=2 )
22.4985
0.6910
0.4094
3.2361
17.5
1.8469
w/o state rollout
22.5285
0.6938
0.4086
3.2939
16.2
1.7891
+ harm/severe penalties
22.5604
0.6909
0.4050
3.2974
18.8
1.7857
Appendix
Table 5: Controlled pre-action ranking ablation on the 160 OOF states. Every policy ranks the shared frozen pool of the closed-loop replay (Sec. 4.4 : annotated degradation states, 1,415 cached candidates) and executes exactly one real action per state; H=2 uses only virtual lookahead. Harm rates are therefore not comparable with Table 3 , which uses estimated beliefs and the 2,147-candidate pool. ΔFY=ΔPSNRY+10ΔSSIMY is the realized fidelity gain, and Regret is the oracle ΔFY minus the realized one.
Figure 8: Additional qualitative comparisons on MiO100 Groups A–C.
Metric
World model − Direct
WM-F − Direct
HR
− 2.1 [ − 15.5, 11.8]
− 4.8 [ − 15.1, 6.0]
Harm
− 6.2 [ − 13.8, 1.2]
− 2.5 [ − 10.0, 5.0]
Severe
− 5.6 [ − 16.2, 4.4]
− 4.4 [ − 13.8, 5.0]
Δ PSNR Y (dB)
− 0.13 [ − 0.68, 0.41]
− 0.21 [ − 0.65, 0.23]
Δ SSIM Y
0.002 [ − 0.013, 0.019]
− 0.002 [ − 0.017, 0.012]
Δ LPIPS
− 0.013 [ − 0.033, 0.006]
− 0.001 [ − 0.018, 0.018]
Appendix
Table 6: Paired differences to the Direct scorer with 95% clean-identity cluster-bootstrap intervals. Rates are in percentage points.
Utility
HR (%)
Harm (%)
Severe (%)
Δ PSNR Y
Δ SSIM Y
Δ LPIPS
rs
Full
34.6
42.5
21.9
1.14
0.055
− 0.069
0.309
w/o v
− 14.5
58.1
35.6
− 0.66
− 0.005
− 0.019
− 0.092
w/o pben
32.4
46.2
21.9
1.08
0.050
− 0.058
0.310
w/o ξ
36.1
41.9
20.6
1.17
0.060
− 0.072
0.311
w/o g , q , d , u , or C
34.6
42.5
21.9
1.14
0.055
− 0.069
0.309–0.312
Appendix
Table 7: Utility-term ablation (one term removed at a time, other coefficients frozen). Terms follow Eq. ( 8 ): v fidelity gain, pben benefit probability, ξ non-target side effects, g target gain, q proxy-quality gain, d content damage, u uncertainty, C cost prior.
Figure 9: Supplementary open-loop diagnostics on the 160 OOF states. (a) Share of positive oracle headroom recovered by an ideal selector over the top- k ranked candidates; the dotted line marks 90%. (b) Reliability of the world model’s harm probability in ten equal-count bins with Wilson 95% intervals.
Budget
PSNR Y↑
SSIM Y↑
LPIPS ↓
Harm (%) ↓
No commit (%) ↓
Calls ↓
Time (s) ↓
B=1
21.88
0.683
0.423
8.8
31.2
1.00
18.5
B=2
22.02
0.687
0.419
11.2
21.2
1.31
21.0
B=4
22.08
0.690
0.416
14.4
15.6
1.71
25.3
Appendix
Table 8: Sensitivity of PreActIR to the real-execution budget on the 160 OOF states, with the candidate pool and verifier fixed. Harm counts no-commit outcomes as non-harmful; time counts restoration-tool execution only. The B=4 row is the PreActIR row of Table 4 .
Figure 10: Quality versus real tool calls on the 160 OOF states with a shared candidate pool. Top: learned verifier; bottom: ground-truth verifier that commits exactly the candidates labeled beneficial (Appendix A.2 ). Points from left to right correspond to B=1,2,3,4,6 ; axes are shared across rows. (a,c) Y-PSNR gain over the input. (b,d) Share of states with no committed candidate within budget. Error bars are 95% clean-identity cluster-bootstrap intervals; the oracle order uses realized outcomes and is shown only as a reference.
Policy
Accepted
Beneficial accepted
Harmful accepted
Reactive
47/160
43/77 (55.8%)
4/78 (5.1%)
Routing
54/160
46/81 (56.8%)
8/74 (10.8%)
Fidelity-head
107/160
88/122 (72.1%)
19/34 (55.9%)
PreActIR
110/160
94/130 (72.3%)
16/26 (61.5%)
Oracle order
98/160
97/150 (64.7%)
1/7 (14.3%)
Appendix
Table 9: Learned-verifier decisions on each policy’s first choice at B=1 , using the cached ground-truth labels.
Vision-language agents that orchestrate specialized tools for image restoration (IR) have emerged as a promising method, yet most existing frameworks operate in a training-free manner. They rely on heuristic task scheduling and exhaustive tool traversal, resulting in sub-optimal restoration paths and prohibitive computational cost. We argue that the core bottleneck lies in the absence of a learned policy to make decision, as a vision-language model cannot efficiently handle degradation-aware task ordering and tool composition. To this end, we propose TIR-Agent, a trainable image restoration agent that performs a direct tool-calling policy through a two-stage training pipeline of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) followed by reinforcement learning (RL). Two key designs underpin effective RL training: (i) a random perturbation strategy applied to the SFT data, which broadens the policy's exploration over task schedules and tool compositions, and (ii) a multi-dimensional adaptive reward mechanism that dynamically re-weights heterogeneous image quality metrics to mitigate reward hacking. To support high-throughput, asynchronous GPU-based tool invocation during training, we further develop a globally shared model-call pool. Experiments on both in-domain and out-of-domain degradations show that TIR-Agent outperforms 12 baselines, including 6 all-in-one models, 3 training-free agents, and 3 proprietary models, and achieves over 2.5× inference speedup by eliminating redundant tool executions.
Guoli Jia, Yisheng Zhang, Haote Hu +11
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Data Science & Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, China Unicom, Beijing, China · Hunan University, Changsha, China +2
This paper studies agentic image restoration, in which multimodal agents coordinate specialized restoration tools to recover images affected by complex degradations. Existing restoration agents often derive complete tool-use plans from the original degraded image or retrieve previously successful trajectories, providing limited support for adapting individual actions to evolving intermediate restoration states. We find that accepted tool executions can change the residual degradation state and, consequently, the applicability of subsequent tools. To address this issue, we propose SkillIR, a skill-guided framework that represents restoration experience as degradation-centered action evidence rather than complete tool-use trajectories. SkillIR consolidates context-dependent action outcomes into scene-aware restoration skills that characterize applicable conditions, expected effects, and attributable failure cases. Instead of prescribing a complete restoration plan, the retrieved skills guide one bounded action at a time within a verified residual-state loop: each tool output is treated as a candidate, committed only after transition verification, and followed by reassessment of the active residual degradations. After each rollout, the resulting evidence is used to create, refine, or patch dynamic skills, enabling accumulated restoration experience to improve decision-making for subsequent inputs. Experiments on synthetic and real-world multi-degradation datasets demonstrate that SkillIR improves restoration quality and enables more reliable and effective tool use.
Jie Shao, Shengkai Hu, Xu Zhang +4
Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan, China
Real-world image restoration is challenging due to complex and interacting mixed degradations. Recent agent-based approaches address this problem by composing multiple task-specific restoration tools. However, empirical analysis reveals that their performance is fundamentally limited by implicitly constrained planning spaces and the lack of coordination among independently pretrained tools. To address these issues, we propose OPERA (Optimized Planning-Execution Restoration Agent), a framework that jointly optimizes restoration planning and tool execution in an end-to-end manner. On the planning side, OPERA uses reinforcement learning to directly optimize tool composition over a combinatorial plan space, with the final restoration quality as the reward. On the execution side, OPERA introduces agent-guided co-training of restoration tools, enabling them to learn cooperative behaviors under sequential composition. Extensive experiments on multi-degradation benchmarks and real-world datasets demonstrate that OPERA consistently outperforms both all-in-one restoration models and existing agent-based methods across diverse and complex degradation scenarios.
Feng Zhu, Shuyang Xie, Yihan Zeng +2
Harbin Institute of Technology · Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab